I think you should give overall control of the ban list to me
I think you should give overall control of the ban list to me
I think you should give overall control of the ban list to me
I think you should give overall control of the ban list to me
(edited)
3
1
3Step 1: Make your requirements less dumb. It doesn't matter who gave it to you. ...
Step 2: Delete Part of the Process. ...
Step 3: Simplify or Optimize. ...
Step 4: Accelerate Cycle Time! ...
Step 5: Automate. (edited)
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1Validators do not have to use the same denylist file, or any denylist at all. Only if all consensus group members both have a denylist and have matching records for a Hotspot on the denylist would any action be taken. (edited)
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2

1
1At this point hosts can submit evidence, and a committee will vote (super majority) to accept or deny this evidence.
This suggests that the "evidence" being submitted is unknown. Am I understanding this correctly? If so, can we provide a list of items that we consider collectively as valid "evidence" then there is no confusion as to what can be submitted
13389 validators and the top counts grouped by owner are:
# select count(*) as cnt, owner from validator_inventory group by owner order by cnt desc limit 50;
cnt | owner
-----+-----------------------------------------------------
345 | 14bPkx9h3JkkfZWXXVCsjdPbKKdXxS5LrA4PF9YjpLFvxM5qHzw
133 | 13hKQD1iGeD4UNRDDBq1nXM5im9YWq8sewum76KMgj7xVsNRhPV
109 | 14RddnkW1UGNwNipHWw3LxJHTAxdMHRRw55Hx8YnufLfDJQwvgn
103 | 136nSZ4niPtQNLqgVKi2uj5KVBw363vnjTciBYkv1LcVvda7fgP
100 | 14EZ5XygH3qvDd9JSPZxxvUiMD233yQFmAioHSAjs1grxugGxWd
85 | 14a9yBWqiKjSt8JtbaejVGgNwhYh3vMeoN7QjT6W7MynbdVvZCm
68 | 13RtTjMaNpqEQBQqN9K1RezaHJS1cTmX9iMJch3tnGM2XVKz7k6
60 | 13ZDA9iVjHnYLPfkERwWRSjAgKs6f7T7Ra9Ahy4GfE7fY6g8cuE
54 | 14sMaPVnd8bYmcWgX5bcWqeMDRKK9rnKMziZFeyHxRoDp2kBeC7
53 | 14ZUjjjG2YPYHvzW4xHmUYAJFkiTSNV2nG317H27z5CAp1XAXpw
47 | 142fmJcnY5rUoH6A4Wb8EMHnpjxmZATCiQiaT1mZ4LYffoM8uwm
45 | 146MXqWB9nVGjuFWnyrVWHhvHh84PzZVokJaCvKAzYMSeY3CkHP
42 | 14nYSAgAP4z6QqdnDgcyAPS9Hg6fCQXkDmyFH8nqMFX29UYhXCJ
42 | 14cK9qpU4BFtoivcugWnprTR7Lx4BabyJ4qMQ6jfzCgaoa3KVBC
39 | 14QLjXRXhsN4FcLCiuuxJDjawf2uasWN65jgEr3m1h3iWcQPsWR
39 | 14Sh6hbxMC3o3W64kpzuuM9tQ7svA1kmP3XoNYybyimuYrcmAex
36 | 13xUgU5QC1v6SLv3DeTibiV5WwA9af4yTvHRqpmvZ42BPAVXQmi
35 | 14KBub7iK5eriDtipgqRthwa3qL6mmMraMqSi1iumTV7QPcWMG8
34 | 13AohdX9BgnjiXuBUibLv8zCn3yB8jEyZVSeigzkKJTQw5NqASx
32 | 14aDLshY7p2MJrCgbYrWFZZfjB1MBSqHboo2cJCPCVR9Meorh7w
this doesn't account for person/org having multiple accounts (edited)3389 validators and the top counts grouped by owner are:
# select count(*) as cnt, owner from validator_inventory group by owner order by cnt desc limit 50;
cnt | owner
-----+-----------------------------------------------------
345 | 14bPkx9h3JkkfZWXXVCsjdPbKKdXxS5LrA4PF9YjpLFvxM5qHzw
133 | 13hKQD1iGeD4UNRDDBq1nXM5im9YWq8sewum76KMgj7xVsNRhPV
109 | 14RddnkW1UGNwNipHWw3LxJHTAxdMHRRw55Hx8YnufLfDJQwvgn
103 | 136nSZ4niPtQNLqgVKi2uj5KVBw363vnjTciBYkv1LcVvda7fgP
100 | 14EZ5XygH3qvDd9JSPZxxvUiMD233yQFmAioHSAjs1grxugGxWd
85 | 14a9yBWqiKjSt8JtbaejVGgNwhYh3vMeoN7QjT6W7MynbdVvZCm
68 | 13RtTjMaNpqEQBQqN9K1RezaHJS1cTmX9iMJch3tnGM2XVKz7k6
60 | 13ZDA9iVjHnYLPfkERwWRSjAgKs6f7T7Ra9Ahy4GfE7fY6g8cuE
54 | 14sMaPVnd8bYmcWgX5bcWqeMDRKK9rnKMziZFeyHxRoDp2kBeC7
53 | 14ZUjjjG2YPYHvzW4xHmUYAJFkiTSNV2nG317H27z5CAp1XAXpw
47 | 142fmJcnY5rUoH6A4Wb8EMHnpjxmZATCiQiaT1mZ4LYffoM8uwm
45 | 146MXqWB9nVGjuFWnyrVWHhvHh84PzZVokJaCvKAzYMSeY3CkHP
42 | 14nYSAgAP4z6QqdnDgcyAPS9Hg6fCQXkDmyFH8nqMFX29UYhXCJ
42 | 14cK9qpU4BFtoivcugWnprTR7Lx4BabyJ4qMQ6jfzCgaoa3KVBC
39 | 14QLjXRXhsN4FcLCiuuxJDjawf2uasWN65jgEr3m1h3iWcQPsWR
39 | 14Sh6hbxMC3o3W64kpzuuM9tQ7svA1kmP3XoNYybyimuYrcmAex
36 | 13xUgU5QC1v6SLv3DeTibiV5WwA9af4yTvHRqpmvZ42BPAVXQmi
35 | 14KBub7iK5eriDtipgqRthwa3qL6mmMraMqSi1iumTV7QPcWMG8
34 | 13AohdX9BgnjiXuBUibLv8zCn3yB8jEyZVSeigzkKJTQw5NqASx
32 | 14aDLshY7p2MJrCgbYrWFZZfjB1MBSqHboo2cJCPCVR9Meorh7w
this doesn't account for person/org having multiple accounts (edited)
1
1
1Validators will use the committee list by default which is set in the config file of the validator. Validators can add other lists here or opt out by removing the default list url.
1
1
Risk level of an alarm, which can be Low (1), Medium (2), or High (>=3) .
Risk calculation is based on the formula: Asset Value * Event Reliability * Event Priority / 25 = Risk
So if Asset Value = 3, Reliability = 4 and Priority = 5, the risk would be 3 * 4 * 5 / 25 = 2.4 (rounded down to 2), therefore the Risk value is Medium.angry-purple-tiger on it. Let's also assume no malicious validators, and they're all running the same code.
Now, when the CG processes a transaction reward or PoC transaction for angry-purple-tiger, 33 CG members all vote to block it. Do the other 10 get penalized? They're just opting out of a deny list, not maliciously trying to help angry-purple-tiger. If we say these 10 are not penalized for this, how can the CG tell the difference between a "I'm just opting out" validator and one that is actively trying to help angry-purple-tiger? (edited)angry-purple-tiger on it. Let's also assume no malicious validators, and they're all running the same code.
Now, when the CG processes a transaction reward or PoC transaction for angry-purple-tiger, 33 CG members all vote to block it. Do the other 10 get penalized? They're just opting out of a deny list, not maliciously trying to help angry-purple-tiger. If we say these 10 are not penalized for this, how can the CG tell the difference between a "I'm just opting out" validator and one that is actively trying to help angry-purple-tiger? (edited)RSSI isn't some standard measurement for anything. A given chipset reports RSSI, but what are the units what is the range, how was it calibrated? As an example, I've seen many many devices report RSSI as 0-100, with 0 meaning "the weakest signal I can RX" and 100 being something like "strongest signal I can report on"RSSI isn't some standard measurement for anything. A given chipset reports RSSI, but what are the units what is the range, how was it calibrated? As an example, I've seen many many devices report RSSI as 0-100, with 0 meaning "the weakest signal I can RX" and 100 being something like "strongest signal I can report on"
1/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18673 |/p2p/112QzdbxQRqNeSz9AkxF2M4tWXkxVbHu3kv83ZGMvu9DECVZqAe | petite-carmine-vulture |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18675 |/p2p/112SeLpRBKMn86idxhhrEogeRK8NBjncnaSu8wHDfRhz1eEVnnXF| bright-linen-beetle |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18676 |/p2p/11Ajb9oyLUPEj5AiQHRvCZwafnDcR3Wa7arSdGeAjtWTarLuHbK | upbeat-powder-pigeon |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18677 |/p2p/11PaWPZq4St9rnK8kmBWUEpJnkUXpNGp8mq7XFGX5AntTVSHPZs | modern-mango-narwhal |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18678 |/p2p/11VjZ4caF7xF6pzsTDAZymtYr4dnbXHt7QP9p2NAJVZYhkeLkyD | overt-bubblegum-crow |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18682 |/p2p/1128G9DX4vwmQHJZ5RddLH3mrzGp8Pc3ofe4eezCosnjTtH1QsK3| quick-shadow-puma |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18752 |/p2p/112bMg78GLJWnW4ej2nyY4zu6Z1WM99LDqJEACffovkBXUeLJRJi|blurry-aegean-dragonfly|
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18753 |/p2p/112n3nnmFyALqHqjKv5RpRE8aeU1VK5shGCyNW27UzQFoEoiQG7f| teeny-shamrock-llama |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18686 |/p2p/112qsd3JHEuYLXoTKbU9Em4FRy9hegZpz2VnvkwADmHrgtQ2SU2f| funny-marmalade-wasp |
/ip4/39.172.169.42/tcp/18685 |/p2p/11TAdJiKwRkZQoGR4HmdSpErnTUDAE1eZvTAmKeSp4jPdkAQPr3 | damp-gauze-parrot | (edited)
2
1
1Publish Temporary Hotspot Denylist because if you are on the list, you would probably feel the consequences, so you would know you are on the list, right?Publish Temporary Hotspot Denylist because if you are on the list, you would probably feel the consequences, so you would know you are on the list, right?
2
2
2
1
1denylist table on DeWi ETL, populated with all the addresses from the circulating CSV
1denylist table on DeWi ETL, populated with all the addresses from the circulating CSV
1
2

2
1Validators will use the committee list by default which is set in the config file of the validator. Validators can add other lists here or opt out by removing the default list url.Validators will use the committee list by default which is set in the config file of the validator. Validators can add other lists here or opt out by removing the default list url. Validators will use the committee list by default which is set in the config file of the validator. Validators can add other lists here or opt out by removing the default list url.
1


Why don't we ask CEO directly?
1
1

@BFGNeil - Trackpac.io What should I do? HELP!
@BFGNeil - Trackpac.io What should I do? HELP!
1
1
3
1
okay I'll close my month and be a silent listener~~
~/miner_data# ls
blockchain.db blockchain_swarm denylist heltec-snap ledger.db log miner_poc_statem.state saved-snaps snap state_channels.db
Where does this silly myth come from... 
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
2
(edited)
1denied or something?denied or something?
1tag is a attached to a specific git commit in order to provide context. The 2022020201 is the name of the tag that is attached to the specific commit which is a (long) hash. (edited)
1
1
1
1
1hip-40 to reduce the folks accidentally finding this one instead of the new #helium-denylist-issues (or whatever it would be called) channeldenied or something similar. That way there will always be enough data to re-evaluate previously listed hotspots. Transparency is built in with HIP40.denied or something similar. That way there will always be enough data to re-evaluate previously listed hotspots. Transparency is built in with HIP40. 
1
/s (edited)
1
1
1
1

Reason: Posting Discord Server Invites
12022-03-12 12:41:40.472 156 [info] <0.3720.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{103,29} already have version 2022031101 It seems successfully loaded despite format error
1
1
1
1
12022-03-31 19:18:43.692 1 [info] <0.1879.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{109,29} new denylist version appeared: 2022033001 have 2022032801
2022-03-31 19:18:44.038 1 [notice] <0.1879.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{159,69} failed to verify signature on denylist
2022-04-01 01:18:44.145 1 [info] <0.1879.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{109,29} new denylist version appeared: 2022033001 have 2022032801
2022-04-01 01:18:44.404 1 [notice] <0.1879.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{159,69} failed to verify signature on denylist
2022-04-01 07:18:44.529 1 [info] <0.1879.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{109,29} new denylist version appeared: 2022033001 have 2022032801
2022-04-01 07:18:44.796 1 [notice] <0.1879.0>@miner_poc_denylist:handle_info:{159,69} failed to verify signature on denylist
The current list does not seem to be correct.
3
1
2
1Docker Drawbacks section it is noted that "all Validators in consensus must agree to deny earnings" while this is strictly true I think it should be clarified that this is the majority of the consensus group as well clarify that a majority in consensus is not 51%. (At least what I understood from hashc0de was that consensus was required (2F + 1)) (edited)
1
1for each % on the x axis, randomly initialize votes for each validator according to that %,
simulate 1000 consensus groups where you randomly select 43 validators' votes,
if you get < 22 yesses, you get the rewards.
over the course of those 1000 groups, output the % of groups in which you were rewardedfor each % on the x axis, randomly initialize votes for each validator according to that %,
simulate 1000 consensus groups where you randomly select 43 validators' votes,
if you get < 22 yesses, you get the rewards.
over the course of those 1000 groups, output the % of groups in which you were rewarded none or indicating one or more lists. The config variable is required for the validator process to start up, but it is not set at all during the install or upgrade.
So, if I 'do nothing' my validator won't start. I am forced to set a config variable (or file or something) before the upgraded validator will run.none or indicating one or more lists. The config variable is required for the validator process to start up, but it is not set at all during the install or upgrade.
So, if I 'do nothing' my validator won't start. I am forced to set a config variable (or file or something) before the upgraded validator will run. N = 43
F = 14
samples = 100000
plt.figure(dpi=600)
plt.plot([i for i in range(0,101)],[sum([sum([random.random() < (dlisted/100) for v in range(N)]) < (2*F + 1) for r in range(samples)])/(samples/100) for dlisted in range(0,101)])
plt.title('Rewards while denied')
plt.xlabel('% of validators denying hotspot')
plt.ylabel('% of rewards')
plt.show() (edited)
1
1 If Validator operators don’t feel the need to run a denylist, then we must assume that the network is in good health. Never Assume Anything... Why would a validator care? they get paid regardless of if it is legit or denied hotspots earning PoC.
What incentive is there for #1 Anyone to make a list? Altruism? #2 Any validator to use a list, or pay to maintain a list? If Validator operators don’t feel the need to run a denylist, then we must assume that the network is in good health. Never Assume Anything... Why would a validator care? they get paid regardless of if it is legit or denied hotspots earning PoC.
What incentive is there for #1 Anyone to make a list? Altruism? #2 Any validator to use a list, or pay to maintain a list?
1
111F7SRBwsMFm6XuVtw7kDUsrqPUJYraJeuBC1V7M8pMu3xwBPNG
112dcN6bvAUJufETK5YvDCwGuAWseKoT881ockKX6VBjzagcNQgK
118XWcxyjrMmJvtZowmF2KAzgZYXsa6sCTNXHj7QHBAgLDv3ymZ
112Qa8CUCxpKag9FF4k9uv31q5DgBn4ameuWb8TwUzpNSsAaF5A9
11kQhfQ73XhUt4zkSrLu2Sab645cbBX96RKeaeBZd7askLqT9n7
112SNmQVgSyfbxVCbyDM2AaWUKQBjLB6oeMJUNnQgEezThBye9Zj
112VTySFrJ45wsjkjQ6Xp1NhjH36GZ2KxvdxEo9vK1h9pyr7k8XS
116KuciJS9qC3uGgafSoCUDscvh4i8xuSKvQsM42vRd72zSLkv7
11cTLGLgePHKqJtD4pAcXsiwbjcnoDGceMmguTkqwamPpC3Q9gY
11QvKnNfh7REumtW196GTeZer5HrDumYFXvMbrRcpx9jk3GcW22
112o618kYBbWqLDcLZ1vnwQT1ZEoBgBLaJgRSTUMzeYmdqNpfMLA
112RYx1KgpbmMLYwDA9JmYrNoMnojHcdsb9Mm5txZ3uHKWPZKhTt
11bHGcT6JkMgXTvuEVqV5SUC81rSRop5BmatvnkqBvQP7SxBmiE
112VSBazhxj2kBgp3hqu19NZ4uNgXrZ4oRAHfS7xDG3CdMi7yNAU
112ERQADcxKcLnALpaKLwu8TnXdSefupqSDnz1JBSuesETm8fWRZ
11jZ5qTkfv25S4JFRY48egaDgoB6iqQmpoZgr3HtXSKfo912AWi
11rwF4iSpuQMChxdERME7Ydk2dED2TPHx4ffRycJzi18tLfwUcc
112rpERqFJqbYMqPgTn4vDvitmLMeT3dBZmHb5vWZp9uaGiR9Wwk
112fw4JTBzb4MSNQSo2JmZfrjp8hzsTdFcfjgPe4v3qLAgZ5JxCr
11zpTLQi8ELat9rNmWLhtCf7LiPKyUvnQ8HrJkDMY8me4AHzeMb
112UFR9mtWN9UCdmUGnwaxHLYhbSrf4Z1dXrZViw5bjMuHxKjccc
11CqnnnUi4XpkPYP5Si9X8ZevAL56UVbMSNVpTNwM6izjR8Tmmb
Spoofed: 22
2
2
1
1
#hip-40-validator-denylist has been locked!